Mohit Sewak

.

.

.

Results – (Conjoint Analysis of the Indian Life Insurance)

.

.

Utility Values of Different Levels in every Factor:

.

.
Factor	Level	Utility Estimate	Std. Error
Type	Term	.356	.191
	ULIP	-.402	.191
	Endowment	.046	.229
Coverage	Only Life	.019	.210
	Life + heath	-.266	.260
	life + pension	.704	.260
	joint (spouse/ kids)	-.456	.260
Distribution	Online Purchase	.110	.191
	Through Agent	.378	.191
	Through Corpoate Tie-Ups	-.488	.229
Communication	Social Media	.090	.275
	TV Ads	.500	.275
	Newspaper & Print Ads	-.255	.275
	Hoarding & Banners	.385	.275
	Online Ads i.e. Google Adwords	-.720	.275
Positioning	Simple and honest plan	.412	.210
	Maximizing Returns	-.217	.260
	Maximizing coverage options	-.272	.260
	Assured/ easier claims	.077	.260
(Constant)		12.825	.163

.

.

Importance of Different Attributes of a Life Insurance Product:

.

.

.

Importance Values .
Type	16.160
Coverage	24.747
Distribution	18.453
Communication	26.027
Positioning	14.613
Averaged Importance Score

.

.

Perception Scores (Utilities) of Different Plan Types:

.

.

Explanation of Results:

This shows that the Term insurance plan is valued more by the customer then Endowment and last ULIP. The results can be interpreted by understanding the pain points Term insurance plan addresses:

1. Lower premium costs
2. Easier claim processing
3. Low overhead charges

.

.

Perception Scores (Utilities) of Different Coverage Options:

.

.

Explanation of Results:

The most favored distribution channel is Agent, followed by Online purchase. This highlights the increasing comfort levels with the online medium.

.

.

Importance of Different Distribution Channels for a Life Insurance Product:

.

.

Explanation of Results:

The most favored distribution channel is Agent, followed by Online purchase. This highlights the increasing comfort levels with the online medium.

.

.

Importance of Different Communication/ Advertising Channels for a Life Insurance Product:

.

.

Explanation of Results:

TV ads still remain the most popular medium, followed by Hoarding & banners.

.

.

Importance of Different Positioning Strategies for a Life Insurance Product:

.

.

Explanation of Results:

Simple & honest plan is the most successful positioning strategy. This shows the value consumers place on the transparency of the plan.

.

.

<— Previous (Research 3 – Conjoint Analysis)

.

<——– Return to Home (Introduction – A Conjoint Analysis of the Indian Life Insurance Industry)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Phase 2 – Quantitative Research – (Conjoint Analysis of the Indian Life Insurance)

.

.

Research 3:

Method:  Conjoint Analysis.

Type: Fractional Factorial Design/ Full Profile Conjoint Design.

.

(Green, P. and Srinivasan, V. (1978) Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, vol 5, September 1978, pp 103-123)

.

Research Design:

• A total of 29 PLAN CARDS (25 test cards and 4 hold out cards), were obtained using the ORTHOGONAL ARRAY Design.

.

Factors and Levels:

• Based on our Qualitative research we used the following factors, with the given levels.

.

Factor 1: Type of Policy

Levels:

1. TERM Plan
2. ULIP
3. Endowment

.

Factor 2: Coverage/ features/ riders

Levels:

1. Plain Life Insurance Plan
2. Life Insurance with Health Cover
3. Life Insurance with Pension Cover
4. Joint Life Insurance Plan (for Spouse/ Kid’s education)

.

Factor 3: Distribution Channel

Levels:

1. Online Purchase
2. Assisted by Insurance Agent
3. Through Corporate Tie-Ups

.

Factor 4: Integrated Communication Channel

Levels:

1. Social Media (Blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Expert/ peer reviews etc.)
2. Online Ads on related sites (like google adwords)
3. TV and conventional digital media
4. Newspapers and other Print Media
5. Banners and Hoardings

.

Factor 5: Positioning Strategy

Levels:

1. Easy, Hassle Free, Convenient, Honest
2. Maximizing  Returns/ Savings for the future needs
3. Maximum coverage and features (as in medical claims, and other contingencies)
4. Easier and faster Claim Processing and Maximum Assurance.

.

.

Sampling:

• We took a stratified random sample of 45 respondents of age group between 20-30 years with varying educational levels, profession, gender, and domicile.
• The above sample ensured a degree of error of less than 10% at 95% confidence level in the conjoint research methodology.
• The respondents were explained the research methodology and the use of Plan Cards as used in the study.
• NO monetary compensations were offered, and the unbiased, voluntary co-operation was ensured throughout.

.

.

Methodology:

• Using SPSS 17, 29 Plan Cards (25 (25 test cards and 4 hold out cards), were obtained using the ORTHOGONAL ARRAY Design.
• The respondents were asked to rank these options (plan cards), according to their willingness to buy.
• Besides the plan cards, some demographical (age, gender, domicile, profession, education data was also collected that could be further used for segmentation and profiling purposes.
• A facilitator educated in conjoint methodology was stationed to help the respondents, and ensure good quality of data.
• After collecting all the responses the same were entered back in SPSS, and the results obtained and tabulated.

.

.

<— Previous (Design of Experiment)

.

<——– Return to Home (Introduction – A Conjoint Analysis of the Indian Life Insurance Industry)

.

Next (Result – Conjoint – Indian Insurance) —>

.

.

.

.

.

.